Ladies don’t fart; they poot

Posted on Thursday 8 February 2007

I’ve been following the online dialogues about whether or not Vietnam soldiers were spat upon with jaw-on-the-floor amazement. It hadn’t even occured to me (naive Polimom!) that the stories were considered urban legends in some quarters:

The myth of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran refuses to die. Despite Jerry Lembcke’s debunking book from 1998, Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam, and my best efforts to publicize his work, the press continues to repeat the fables as fact.

Slate’s Jack Schafer, evidently an early convert to the Jerry Lembcke fan club, has been a gob-story-stopper for many years, strongly supporting Lembcke’s statements that the “spit-upon soldier” is a lie:

The truth is that nobody spat on Vietnam veterans and nobody is spitting on the soldiers today. Attempts to silence opponents of the war with those figments of hostility are dishonest and should, themselves, be banished from our discourse.

All of this has floated far beneath Polimom’s radar — until that latest Slate piece, and an interesting rejoinder by Jim Lindgren at The Volokh Conspiracy in which he questioned the interesting dates upon which Lembcke relies to bolster his debunking.

I’m suspicious of the coincidence between Lembke’s account and the beginning of full-text coverage in WESTLAW and LEXIS. In other words, did Lembke’s research show that such stories began appearing in the early 1980s, or did his research show that by 1981-82, when the major newspapers came online in full text, the story was already well known?

The political subtext about how to avoid the pitfalls of Vietnam while still objecting to the War in Iraq are obvious, and I’m not trying to hit anybody’s Iraq hot buttons here. However, accusations of revisionism require scrutiny, and Lindgren had a good question.

He circled back around to the entire issue today with another interesting post, but it was in the breakdown of Lembcke’s four basic arguments that Lembcke’s credibility went out the window altogether — specifically, this one:

[4] “Many tellers of the spitting tales identify the culprits as girls, a curious quality to the stories that gives away their gendered subtext.”

“One clue is that many of the stories have it that it was women or young girls who were the spitters. Students of gender behavior are usually quick to point out that girls do not spit, at least not as a form of communication.

That, folks, is a load of germ-laden mucous… and I’ll just say that I really do have reason to know this, and trust you to let it go at that.

However, that doesn’t mean I don’t perpetuate similar idiocy in my own small way, because I often tell Adorable Child (AC) and her friends:

Ladies don’t snort; they snuffle.

Ladies don’t sweat; they glisten.

Ladies don’t fart; they poot.

I suspect we’re creating our own little mythology. The difference here is that at ten years old, AC and her friends already know that this is all hogwash — that Polimom is simply poking fun at some of the foolish gender-games our society likes to play with itself.

If a ten-year-old knows better than to believe that kind of generalization, it doesn’t say much for the credibility of the “debunking”, does it?

*  *  *  *  * 

Added:  Maha writes:

Righties can’t let go of the stories about antiwar protesters spitting on soldiers during the Vietnam era. There’s a new round of blog posts about it, mostly linking back to this one. Although it would be foolish to claim it never happened, I do have a few clarifications to make.

First, regarding Jerry Lembcke — the sociologist did not, I believe, claim that no antiwar protester ever spit on a soldier. His research focused on a particular spitting narrative, that of antiwar protesters lining up at airports to spit on veterans who had just returned from Vietnam. He explained this is a Boston Globe op ed in 2005.

[snip]

On the Right, however, Lembcke’s claims were contorted into a claim that no soldier was ever spit on by anybody during the Vietnam era, and I see they’re still arguing with Lembcke based on this assumption.

I’m pretty sure I’ve never been thought of as a “rightie”, so I guess I should point out that one doesn’t have to land on one side or another of the political aisle to think there’s something off about Lembcke’s claims, particularly if one comes from a military background (like Polimom).

Also — while I’m sure Maha is well-intentioned in thinking Lembcke’s claims were contorted, he did, in fact, come right out and say exactly that.  I quoted him above and I guess I should do it again:

The truth is that nobody spat on Vietnam veterans and nobody is spitting on the soldiers today

That really is pretty clear.

8 Comments for 'Ladies don’t fart; they poot'

  1.  
    February 8, 2007 | 11:27 am
     

    [...] UPDATE: Others: Polimom, "poot!". Jawa Report (Good Lt.): Score: one to nothing. Brainster: Great job, Lindgren. [...]

  2.  
    February 8, 2007 | 3:32 pm
     

    Yes, it’s very clear, and also out of context.

    It’s a bit like the movie critic who writes “The film was a colossal bore,” and the film ad slices the quote down to “… colossal!…” You leave out the context, so that it says something entirely different from what was intended.

  3.  
    February 8, 2007 | 3:38 pm
     

    Maha — no, it’s not. It’s his closer. Earlier in the piece he writes, “Stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans are bogus.”

    Are we looking at the same article? The one from which I’m quoting was published in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Spring 2003. (link)

  4.  
    Robert A.
    February 8, 2007 | 8:05 pm
     

    I was a teenager during the Vietnam war and am not aware of any specific spitting incidents. But I am not sure anyone could say it never happened. The fact is that some people did not treat Vietnam veterans with the proper level of respect.

    Iraq war veterans are benefiting from this and are being treated with more respect than their predecessors. This qualifies as a good thing.

  5.  
    February 9, 2007 | 1:20 pm
     

    Both sides of the partisan divide listen to their own sides stories. This is a good example.

    What happened was an extensive Lexis-Nexis search disclosed no reported media accounts of soldiers being spit upon. There is one account of a spitting incident where it is unclear why a soldier is being spit at. This is the side the left believes.

    Many years later a columnist in Chicago asked soldiers to send him accounts and he published a book of them. He had recieved numerous accounts. This is the side the right believes.

    By the end of the Vietnam war it was very unpopular with the great majority of American people, particularly young people, and thousands of draftees had fled to Canada. Our conservative president and many conservative prominent today used whatever means they had available to avoid being sent to Vietnam, a war everyone knew was lost. After the end of the war both sides developed their own myths about the war and why it was lost and why we were even fighting.

  6.  
    December 18, 2007 | 6:01 pm
     

    You are the hugest poot I have ever seen…And yes, ladies poot, but they poot bigpoots!

  7.  
    June 13, 2019 | 8:30 pm
     

    Polimom Says » Ladies don’t fart; they poot
    Roger Vivier Flats http://www.rogervivier-paris.com/roger-vivier-flats-c-2.html

  8.  
    June 13, 2019 | 8:31 pm
     

    Polimom Says » Ladies don’t fart; they poot
    roger vivier pumps http://www.vivierparis.com/roger-vivier-pumps-c-3.html

Comments on this blog are subject to the guidelines stated in the Comments Policy.
First-time comments are held for moderator approval. Please use a valid email address.

Leave a comment

(required)

(required)


Information for comment users
Line and paragraph breaks are implemented automatically. Your e-mail address is never displayed. Please consider what you're posting.

Use the buttons below to customise your comment.


RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI